David Garcia v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 8:2013cv00544 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. (See Order for details) (bem)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID GARCIA, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 1/ ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. 16 ) Case No. SA CV 13-0544 JCG ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 David Garcia ( Plaintiff ) challenges the Social Security Commissioner s 18 19 ( Defendant ) decision denying his application for disability benefits. Specifically, 20 Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) improperly rejected 21 the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Israel Rotterman. (Joint Stip. at 3-10, 12.) 22 The Court agrees with Plaintiff for the reasons stated below. A. 23 An ALJ Must Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons to Reject the Contradicted Opinion of a Treating Physician 24 As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating 25 26 source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. 27 28 1/ Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted as the proper defendant herein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Benton ex. rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 2 331 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). This is so because a treating physician is 3 employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as 4 an individual. Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1987). 5 Where the treating doctor s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the 6 [ALJ] may not reject this opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons 7 supported by substantial evidence in the record[.] Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (internal 8 quotation marks and citation omitted). The ALJ can meet the requisite specific and 9 legitimate standard by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and 10 conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings. 11 Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks 12 and citation omitted). 13 14 15 B. The ALJ Failed to Provide Specific and Legitimate Reasons for Rejecting Dr. Rotterman s Treating Opinion Here, the ALJ provided two reasons for rejecting Dr. Rotterman s treating 16 opinion. (See Administrative Record ( AR ) at 30.) The Court addresses, and 17 rejects, both below. 18 First, to the extent the ALJ rejected Dr. Rotterman s opinion for insufficient 19 objective support, (id. at 30), his assessment is impermissibly broad and conclusory, 20 and does not achieve the level of specificity required to reject the opinion of a 21 treating physician. See Embry v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988); 22 Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 762 (9th Cir. 1989) ( Merely to state that a 23 medical opinion is not supported by enough objective findings does not achieve the 24 level of specificity our prior cases have required . . . ) (internal quotation marks and 25 citation omitted). 26 Further, Dr. Rotterman s opinion does appear to have objective support. He 27 performed multiple physical exams on Plaintiff. (AR at 383, 386-91, 400, 409, 418, 28 426, 445, 463, 476, 488.) He conducted x-rays, MRIs, and impingement tests. (Id. at 2 1 366, 382, 456, 472, 483, 484.) Dr. Rotterman also documented objective limitations 2 regarding the range of motion in Plaintiff s right shoulder. (Id. at 387.) 3 Accordingly, the ALJ s first reason for rejecting Dr. Rotterman s opinion fails on this 4 record. 5 Second, the ALJ found that Dr. Rotterman s records provide no function-by- 6 function determination with regard to [Plaintiff s] residual functional capacity. (AR 7 at 30.) But the primary function of medical records is to promote communication 8 and recordkeeping for health care personnel-not to provide evidence for disability 9 determinations. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 634 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, one would 10 not expect medical records to routinely discuss any issue that is irrelevant to 11 diagnosis and treatment. Further, the ALJ provides no reason for disregarding those 12 aspects of Dr. Rotterman s opinion that do bear on Plaintiff s residual functional 13 capacity, including rotational limitations and positive impingement signs. (See AR at 14 272, 387, 445.) Therefore, as to this second reason, the ALJ s credibility 15 determination is likewise insufficient.2/ Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court determines that the ALJ 16 17 improperly discredited the opinion of Plaintiff s treating physician. The Court thus 18 determines that the ALJ s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Mayes 19 v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2001). 20 C. Remand is Warranted 21 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and 22 award benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no 23 24 2/ The Court also notes that the ALJ s reliance on the non-examining medical expert does not 25 justify the rejection of Plaintiff s treating physician or save the decision from legal error. (See AR 26 at 31; Lester, 81 F.3d at 831 ( [t]he opinion of a nonexamining physician cannot by itself 27 28 constitute substantial evidence that justifies the rejection of the opinion of [] a treating physician. ); Erickson v. Shalala, 9 F.3d 813, 818 n.7 (9th Cir. 1993) ( the non-examining physicians conclusion, with nothing more, does not constitute substantial evidence[] ) (internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted) (italics in original)). 3 1 useful purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been 2 fully developed, it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct an immediate 3 award of benefits. See Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 But where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a determination 5 can be made, or it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find 6 plaintiff disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated, remand is appropriate. 7 See id. at 594. 8 Here, in light of the ALJ s error, the credibility of Plaintiff s treating physician 9 must be properly assessed. Therefore, on remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate the 10 opinion of Dr. Rotterman and either credit it as true, or provide valid reasons for any 11 portion that is rejected. 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 13 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and 14 REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this 15 decision. 16 17 Dated: December 18, 2013 18 19 ____________________________________ 20 Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.